Second Amendment: Is concealed carry a privilege or a right?

human events ^ | 12/3/14 | s greenhut

[bestintxas]

The federal courts would never uphold a law requiring people to show “good cause” before they could speak in public or march in a parade. It would be a violation of our First Amendment rights. Yet an ongoing court battle examines whether similar rules regarding the carrying of firearms is an equally outrageous violation of the Second Amendment.

The case started in 2008 in San Diego County, when Edward Peruta and other gun owners challenged San Diego County’s process for issuing concealed-carry permits. State law gives sheriffs the power to determine “good cause” – and San Diego County required documentation showing the applicant faced some sort of specific threat to merit one. The result in restrictive counties is a small number of residents — people connected to law enforcement, lawyers, business people facing security risks and influential people — were free to exercise such “rights.” Actually, it became a “privilege.” In February, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the gun owners.

“Because the Second Amendment ‘confer(s) an individual right to keep and bear arms,’ we must assess whether the California scheme (in light of San Diego County’s policy) allows some people to bear arms outside the home in some places at some times; instead, the question is whether it allows the typical, responsible, law-abiding citizens to bear arms in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense,” ruled the court. “The answer … is a resounding ‘no.’”

[dware]

It doesn’t say, “Shall not be infringed, as long as you have a permit.” - it really is very clear: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. End of discussion. I refuse to ask permission to carry a concealed weapon. Won’t do it. Free men don’t ask permission.

[JimRed]

Similarly, requiring permits or licensing may be a reasonable regulation, if the permits or licenses are reasonably available, and are issued under objective standards. Permits that can be denied without cause are not.

ANY permit or licensing requirement is an infringement. Anyone who cannot be trusted to own and carry a weapon should not be running around loose.

[Texas Eagle]

The federal courts would never uphold a law requiring people to show “good cause” before they could speak in public or march in a parade. It would be a violation of our First Amendment rights.

"Really? Could've fooled me."

[basil]

Ping!

[lakecumberlandvet]

Lawyers and politicians, too often the same, can’t stand simplicity. The 2nd amendment doesn’t grant us the right to keep and bear arms. God did that. The 2nd amendment simply states that the government can’t infringe upon that right. Requiring CCW permits and other restrictive measures are, plain and simple, infringements.

[Westbrook]

> better be accompanied by an equally cogent remark for doing
> the same thing with respect to the First Amendment.

First Amendment has been under attack for some time now. Only Politically Correct Speech and Politically Correct Religious Exercise will be allowed.

[Gaffer]

Understood...my point was a little bit different than that.

[stockpirate]

You do not, at this point in time, need a permit to exercise you right to free speech, so with that said you do not need a permit to ccw, imho.

[ctdonath2]

Understand the history:

Let’s clarify that by “concealed” we’re referring to making a concerted effort to ensure it’s not seen, not merely covered by one’s coat or other brief/casual veiling.

When the 2nd Amendment was written, most viable guns were too large to carry concealed. Smaller guns certainly existed, but if your goal was mundane honest self-defense then you wanted something big enough that you’d not be interested in trying to keep concealed outright. Armed self-defense was normal and accepted (no cell phones, no 911, no rapid-response police), so having a visible weapon was not considered objectionable. As such, making a concerted effort to conceal a weapon was considered presumptive evidence of ill intent.

Since the concealing of a weapon was considered presumptive evidence of criminal intent, “licensing” amounted to alerting the authorities ahead of time that there was some unusual and reasonable purpose for doing so, warding off arrest and incarceration based on concealed carry alone.

And thus the Founding Fathers wrote RKBA in the social norm of open carry being acceptable, and [earnest] concealed carry reasonably (to them then) suspect behavior.

Alas, as unrestricted unlicensed open carry was increasingly criminalized on grounds of eliminating guns altogether, the model of having a license to show prior demonstration of lawful intention was normalized - as was the practice of requiring concealed carry, both as licensing thereof had been institutionalized and to prevent “scaring the natives”. Thus open carry was socially ostracized, and licensed concealed carry became the norm for weapons possession ... and the whole standard of “open carry good, concealed carry bad” was reversed.

Now we have the groundswell to restore the unrestricted unlicensed right to open carry, which will take quite some time to become socially normal again. As this social right re-emerges, we will have a long history of concealed carry being the socially acceptable norm, AND the technology to put serious firepower in a mere pocket with ease and modest cost.

In the lead article’s context, open carry is a social anathema: regardless of how legal public carry may be, anyone carrying openly will instantly be considered a social pariah. Since self-defense and possessing equipment vital thereto is a basic right, and open carry is de facto prohibited (socially, if not legally) then exercise of that right via concealed carry _must_ be legally protected.

TL;DR - “back then” concealed carry was a privilege, while open carry was the norm. Thanks to social consequences of gun control, and to modern technology, concealed carry has become a norm annexed into the 2nd Amendment (if, for sake of argument, it wasn’t there to begin with). Exercising RKBA now requires legal protection of concealed carry as a right, since open carry has suffered “chilling effects” for nigh unto a century.

[eyeamok]

All persons, granted a privilege, to Keep and Bear Arms without being infringed, Shall be Prohibited from using said Privilege in defense of others for Profit or Gain.

Any Person violating this law, shall be guilty of a Felony punishable by a Mandatory Sentence of not less than 10 years in Prison and a $10 Million Dollar Fine.

Pass this law and watch how fast it turns back into a Right!

[stremba]

There is such interpretation of the First Amendment. For example, it is deemed a reasonable regulation of your First Amendment rights to require you to get a permit from a city where you wish to exercise your right to peacefully assemble. Most peaceful political demonstrations is most cities require permits from the city. I am sure nobody would argue that a peaceful political protest does not fall within the purview of the First Amendment, but the reasonable regulation of such a protest is also typically accepted.

Further, the First Amendment rights are not absolute. You cannot publicly lie about someone without facing legal consequences. You cannot make speech that incites a riot or causes public panic (eg. the classic yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theater).

Religious expression can also be regulated. You can’t use religious freedom arguments to avoid prosecution for criminal actions, for instance. You also cannot use religious freedom as a justification for engaging in behavior that is disruptive to others. (eg. you cannot have a religious service in a public space that blocks traffic on a city street.)

I am sure that others can provide other examples of limitations and regulations on First Amendment rights. In similar vein, there are, and ought to be, restrictions on Second Amendment rights as well. For instance, do you really want violent criminals to have full Second Amendment rights? Do you really want insane people to have concealed carry permits? Certainly, the gun control laws we have are WAY overboard, but I cannot in good conscience argue that the Second Amendment does or should confer an ABSOLUTE right to keep and bear arms.

[Lee'sGhost]

Can’t believe I’m the first to post this...but the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of RIGHTS!!!

Duh...

[ConservativeInPA]

The original meaning of “infringe” is Not different than today. Words MEAN things.

Our founders used words very carefully and meant what they wrote. It is interesting to note that the 2nd Amendment was derived from language of state constitutions. I would have loved to hear the conversations as the Bill of Rights were written. I wonder what the Pennsylvania delegation to congress would have to say. Pennsylvania's constitution does not use the phrase, "shall not infringe." It uses the phrase, "shall not be questioned." I kind of like the idea that you can't even question a right or propose a law that would limit that right.

[Lurker]

“I would have loved to hear the conversations as the Bill of Rights were written. “

You can read the argue the on both sides in the writings of the Federalist papers and the Anti-Federalists. It’s quite an eye opener.

The Antis have turned out to be right.

[SirLurkedalot]

My tagline sums it up for me.

[Svartalfiar]

Banning open carry, while allowing concealed, or banning concealed carry, while allowing open, are perhaps reasonable regulations of the right, because they still allow the right to be exercised.

Last I checked, the second doesn't mention anything about allowing some infringing. I think it says something about no infringing.

[ConservativeInPA]

I’ve read both ... but it is not like being in the same room when there is a conversation/debate. Compare that to reading the Federalist papers, which were written a point in time to make an argument, and published in newspapers. It is different than hearing the delegates from PA question the delegates from MA for not having anything in the Massachusetts constitution on the right to bear arms (don’t hold me to that, but I think that was the case - not the questioning part, but the constitution part). That discussion would be interesting.

[birdsman]

Similarly, requiring permits or licensing may be a reasonable regulation,

Permits and licences cost money. That’s a tax to exercise my 2nd amendment rights. Perhaps next we can require a permit to attend certain churches?

I also don’t much care for the government knowing who has guns. That’s a “need to know” issue, and the govt has no need to know.

[kinsman redeemer]

...true.

I would like to be an "absolutist" about this point- to include any certificate or license requirement, background check, registration, or restriction as to kind (design type) of "firearm" - I would question ANYTHING that infringes.

Honestly, I don't know if being so absolute is reasonable. Some people should not have weapons. Some of those are friends and some are family. (wink... wink)

The Strongest Possible Restrictive Language
First and Second Amendment protections were always given the very strongest possible restrictive language – no law shall be passed – shall make no law – inviolable – not be deprived or abridged – not be restrained - shall not be infringed - nor shall the right be infringed - shall make no laws touching - shall make no laws to infringe. The Second Amendment's “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" language was clearly not intended to allow for extensive reasonable regulation. Rather, it was intended to prevent all laws and regulations that would result in the people being deprived, abridged, restrained, narrowed, or restricted in the exercise of their fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
David Young
click: SOURCE

[kinsman redeemer]

Your tagline is excellent!